'|[llinois  Coal  Operators  Association 

OFFICE,  1002-3  ELLSWORTH  BUILDING 

355  DEARBORN  STREET,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 


OFFICERS 

().  L.  Garrison, President 

J.  A.  Agee, Vice-President 

Fj.  T.  Bent, . Secretary-Treasurer 

C.  L.  ScROGGS,  - - - - Recording  Secretary 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 


\ ' 

r 


O.  L.  Garrison,  Chairman 
C.  L.  SckoGGS,  Secretary 

/ >>5/  District — 

H.  N.  Taylor,  A.  L.  Sweet,  S.  M.  Dalzell 

Second  District — 

J.  H.  Garaghty,  W.  W.  Keefer 

'hh'd  District — 

C.  A.  Starne,  Lee  Kincaid,  Edwards  Brown 

dtirth  District — 

D.  D.  Shumway,  F.  W.  Lukins,  Walter  Puterbaugh 

"ifth  District — 

C.  F.  Parker, 

Sixth  District — 

F.  D.  Secor, 

Seventh  District — 

F.  S.  Peabody,  M.  C.  Wright 

Eighth  District — 

Henry  Long,  Richard  Newsam,  G.  W.  Trakr 

Ninth  District — 

Randolph  Smith,  E.  C.  Donk,  Geo.  T.  Cutts 


J.  C.  Muren,  a.  j.  Moorshead 
e.  E.  Hull,  S.  B.  Eaton 


the  commission 

Herman  Justi, Commissioner 

C.  L.  ScROGGS, Secretary  of  Commission 


ARBITRATION. 

ITS  USES  AND  ABUSES. 


Address  delivered  at  the  National  Convention  of  Employer  and  Employe, 
Minneapolis,  Minn.,  September  23rd,  1902. 


By  Herman  Justi, 

Commissioner  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association. 


The  subject  of  this  address  is  suggested  by  the  free- 
dom with  which  the  term  “arbitration”  is  used  as  a 
word  to  conjure  with.  Its  meaning  seems  to  be  little 
understood,  and  just  at  this  time  it  is  confounded, 
even  by  men  who  should  know  better,  with  mediation, 
conciliation  or  friendly  intervention.  To  many  people 
it  is  something  new,  and  to  the  popular  mind  its  very 
novelty  places  a dangerous  glamour  about  it.  The 
gravity  of  arbitration  and  all  that  it  involves  is  little 
appreciated,  and  herein  lies  one  of  the  prime  causes 
for  its  abuse.  Wise  labor  leaders  and  thoughtful 
employers  of  labor  view  it  alike  with  apprehension. 

Any  plan  of  settling  labor  disputes  that  is  labeled 
“Arbitration”  seems  to  catch  the  popular  fancy ; but 
as  in  all  other  matters,  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the 
issues  involved  and  understand  the  question  least,  are 
the  very  persons  who  discuss  it  most,  and  who  are  most 
insistent  upon  its  adoption  for  everything.  With  the 
masses  arbitration  is  the  first  thought,  while  with  those 
who  are  constantly  dealing  with  labor  disputes,  or 
with  those  who  have  something  at  stake,  as  a last 
resort. 

^ pt0593 


wSpeaking  from  tlie  view- point  qf..i<!snc  wliose  time 
is  entirel}^  occupied  in  adjusting  differences  arising 
between  employer  and  employe  in  tlic  coal  mining 
industry  of  Illinois,  I say  that  arbitration  should  never 
be  resorted  to  save  in  an  extremity,  and  that  the  energy 
and  interest  displayed  in  advocating  its  general  adoption 
could  be  better  applied  to  all  those  simpler  and  more 
practical  plans  and  methods  of  adjustment  designed  to 
render  arbitration  unnecessary. 

The  popular  idea  of  arbitration  is  an  erroneous  one, 
and  if  it  prevail  the  labor  problem  will  be  complicated 
instead  of  simplified.  Arbitration’s  popular  synonym  is 
“compromise,”  and  there  is  nothing  more  mischievous 
than  a compromise  on  any  question  of  principle. 
Someone  says:  “Let  the  fine-spun  rights  of  the 
case  go,  but  get  to  work!”  Could  anything  be 
more  destructive  of  the  foundations  of  our  industrial 
life?  There  are  some  compromises  which  bring 
temporary  good,  it  is  true,  but  ultimate  destruction 
must  result,  and  many  who  ‘have  fulfilled  the  de- 
mands of  the  written  law  will  stand  accused 
before  the  “bar  of  eternal  justice”  for  a wily 
evasion  of  those  invisible  questions  and  meanings 
which  have  their  answer  deep  in  the  breast  of 
humanity. 

“What  is  fairer  than  arbitration?”  is  a query  heard 
on  all  sides.  Nothing  is  fairer  than  arbitration  when 
arbitration  is  positively  required,  when  all  the  parties 
to  the  dispute  desire  their  differences  arbitrated,  and 
when  the  arbiters  are  men  who  have  been  selected 
because  of  their  special  fitness  for  the  work. 


4 


ATTRIBUTES  OF  THE  ARBITER. 

difficulties  of  wise  and  just  arbitration  may  be 
faintly  comprehended  when  we  fairly  appreciate  the 
qualities  required  of  an  arbiter  of  the  first  class.  A 
judge  upon  the  bench  may  wisely  and  justly  admin- 
ister his  high  office,  and  yet  lack  some  of  the 
essentials  of  an  ideal  arbiter  in  labor  disputes;  for  the 
arbiter  cannot  be  controlled  by  general  rules  or  staj}- 
utes,  by  precedent,  by  general  information  or  opinion, 
or  by  technicalities,  and  he  must  investigate  the  facts 
of  the  case  in  such  a way  as  the  varied  duties  of  the 
office  of  a judge  will  not  permih|  A combination  af 
the  qualifications  of  an  arbifeT'lS;  indeed  rare,  for  he 
should  be  a person  possessed  of  strong  human  sympa 
thies,  with  a calm,  judicial  mind,  with  business  training 
or  natural  business  genius,  a keen  sense  of  right,  true 
courage,  a knowledge  of  the  subject  which  he  is  called 
on  to  consider  in  all  its  phases,  and  a clear  and  almost 
prophetic  view  of  the  ultimate  consequences  of  the 
verdict  he  is  to  render.  A proper  recognition  of  the 
true  dignity  of  both  labor  and  capital  is  an  essential 
element  when  the  equal  rights  of  employer  and  em- 
ploye are  involved,  and  the  arbiter  who,  at  one 
and  the  same  time,  scorns  the  deification  of  Mammon 
and  avoids  demagogic  allurements,  and  who  will  in 
turbulent  seasons  keep  himself  in  mid-stream  with 
every  faculty  intelligently,  calmly  and  sympathetically 
outstretched  toward  either  shore  of  feeling,  can  send 
upon  the  most  troubled  and  vexed  questions  the  satis- 
fying unction  of  justice,  which  is  ultimately  synony- 
mous with  peace.  There  are  few  dangers  for  tlie  arbiter 
who  refuses  to  cling  to  the  enticing  shore  of  popular 
sentiment,  which  too  often  involves  the  wreckage  of 


5 


great  enterprises  on  somebody’s,  or  some  corporation’s,  ' 
sordid  little  rock  of  individual  interest. 

ARBITRATION  A MAKE=SHIFT. 

It  must  thus  be  clearly  seen,  that  arbitration  as  a 
make-shift  is  an  absurdity,  utterly  useless  as  a means 
of  promoting  industrial  peace,  and  mischievous  in  its 
consequences.  It  must  also  be  just  as  clear  that  arbi- 
tration is  equally  acceptable  to  employer  and  employe 
when  both  believe  something  is  to  be  gained  by  it, 
and  it  meets  with  equal  opposition  when  there  is  a 
mutual  conviction  of  impending  loss.  “Old  Adam”  is 
always  on  deck;  crafty,  cunning,  but  not  wisely  selfish. 

If  wisely  selfish,  we  should  hear  of  “lockouts”  and 
“strikes”  only  at  long  intervals,  for  the  “wisely  selfish,” 
if  not  endowed  with  good  business  sense,  seek  at  least 
to  cultivate  it,  and  here  let  it  be  understood  that  the 
labor  problem  is  a business  problem,  and  that  the 
only  relations  existing  between  employer  and  employe 
are  contract  relations,  while  any  other  relations  are 
purely  voluntary  or  elective  and  can  only  exist  by 
mutual  agreement. 

AS  AN  HEROIC  REMEDY. 

While  firmly  and  confidently  believing  in  the  ad- 
vantages of  proper  arbitration,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  only  way  to  render  arbitration  efifective  is  to 
render  it  so  costly, — so  very  difficult  to  obtain,  that  it 
will  be  resorted  to  as  an  heroic  remedy  and  not  as  a 
panacea  for  ever}^  ill.  That  is  to  say,  it  should  be 
applied  to  the  labor  malady  in  an  extremity,  or  when 
every  other  remedy  has  failed. 

The  truth  of  this  should  be  patent,  for  the  secret 


6 


of  all  absence  of  discord  in  the  family  system  is  the 
co-operative  spirit  harmoniously  applied  to  the  recog- 
nized rights  of  the  individual  members,  and  where  this 
exists  there  is  no  need  to  resort  to  the  undignified 
formality  of  calling  in  the  traditional  wise  counsellor 
or  friend  of  the  family,  to  settle  the  internal  difference. 
An  industry,  like  a family,  should  not  grow  dependent 
upon  an  alien  strength  to  settle  its  disputes,  for  its 
success  and  prosperity  rests  upon  its  own  intelligent 
ability  to  adjust  such  differences.  If  arbitration  is  too 
easily  accessible  it  may  defeat  the  very  end  desired. 

To  illustrate,  let  us  suppose  there  is  either 
an  understanding  between  disputants  at  a certain 
industrial  plant  to  the  effect  that  all  parties 
shall  continue  at  work  pending  an  investigation  of 
differences  and  disputes  and  of  a decision  by  a board 
of  arbitration  agreed  upon  to  adjust  these  differences 
or  disputes,  or  there  is  not  such  an  understanding.  If 
such  an  understanding  exists,  the  failure  to  reach  a 
decision  may  seriously  injure  the  laborer;  while  on 
the  other  hand,  if  there  be  no  understanding,  there 
is  danger  that  the  industry  involved  may  be  made 
idle  indefinitely,  to  the  serious  or  disastrous  injury  of 
the  owners,  and  the  injury  of  either  is  unquestionably 
the  injury  of  both. 

ENCOURAGE  SELF=RELIANCE. 

There  is  a further  and  a better  reason  for  deferring 
arbitration  until  all  other  means  of  adjustment  are 
exhausted.  In  my  opinion,  differences  and  disputes 
sliould  l)e  settled  as  near  their  source  as  possible,  and 
with  the  least  possible  delay.  Introducing  a third  party 
often  complicates  and  seriously  delays  a settlement. 

7 


Weakness,  vanity,  error,  like  threads  inharmonious  in 
eolor  woven  in  a fabrie,  run  through  our  whole  human 
nature  from  the  most  exalted  to  the  most  humble. 
All  alike  shrink  from  the  exposure  of  personal  weak- 
ness, error  of  judgment,  or  wrong-doing.  All  alike, 
whether  base  or  noble,  want  to  share  in  the  final  and 
wise  adjustment.  It  is  well,  therefore,  that  arbitration 
is  not-  only  so  remote  from  us  as  to  keep  us  from  temp- 
tation, but  so  diffieult  of  aeeess  that  all  parties  in 
interest  will  feel  they  must  try  to  work  out  their  own 
salvation  without  it.  Thus  arbitration  will  be  dignified 
and  respeeted  and  its  deerees  when  rendered  will  be 
trusted  and  obeyed. 

To  build  up  in  our  people  the  spirit  of  self-relianee  is 
essential.  Break  down  eonfidence  in  self,  or  lessen  the 
conseiousness  of  our  responsibility  to  ourselves  and  to 
our  fellows,  and  we  beeome  a race  of  weaklings, 
shirks  and  demagogues,  and  the  very  institutions 
formed  to  prevent  trouble  become  nurseries  where 
trouble  is  fomented  and  demagogues  and  time-servers 
are  created.  If  arbitration  is  made  so  easy  that  em- 
ployer or  employe  can  resort  to  it  upon  any  pretext,  then 
the  result  will  be  that  wherever  it  is  believed  any 
advantage  can  be  obtained  by  one  side  or  the  other, 
the  responsibility  of  settling  questions  in  dispute  will 
never  be  assumed,  as  it  should  be,  by  those  immediately 
in  authority  or  interest.  Thus  arbitration  will,  in  the 
very  nature  of  things,  soon  be  in  bad  repute.  No 
dignified  plan  of  arbitration  will  ever  be  successful 
until  all- wise  and  honorable  means  have  been  exhausted 
in  devising  a simpler,  quicker  -and  equally  fair  method 
of  settling  the  vast  majority  of  such  disputes  as  arise 
from  day  to  day. 


8 


\ 

UNEQUAL  CHANCES. 

'J'lie  jjropositioii  to  arbitrate  under  any  and  all  con- 
ditions is  not  unlike  the  proposition  ol.'  a “New 
Englander,”  who,  having  been  engaged  in  a game  of 
poker  with  a Kentuckian  and  having  lost,  suggested 
that  his  money  be  returned  to  him  and  that  a fresh 
start  in  a new  game  be  niade. 

“No,”  replied  the  Kentuckian,  “I  have  your  money 
and  the  game  is  ended.” 

There  is  no  more  reason  why  under  all  circumstances  • 
the  proposition  to  arbitrate  should  be  agreed  to  than 
there  was  reason  for  the  Kentuckian  to  return  the 
money  he  had  won  in  order  that  the  unfortunate  New 
Englander  might  renew  the  play. 

Another  story  suggests  itself  which  will  further  illus- 
trate the  absurdity  of  most  proposals  to  arbitrate.  In 
the  wilds  of  the  far  West  an  Illinoisan  and  a Kentuckian 
met;  the  former  had  a deck  of  cards  and  the  latter 
a bottle  of  “Bourbon.”  The  Illinoisan  proposed  a 
game  to  the  Kentuckian  to  determine  who  should  pos- 
sess the  bottle.  “No,”  said  the  Kentuckian,  “the 
bottle  is  mine  now,  and  much  as  I love  the  game,  I do 
not  play  it  and  play  fool  at  the  same  time,  but  to  show 
my  friendliness  we  will  share  the  contents  of  the  bottle 
as  long  as  it  lasts.”.  Here  was  practical  common  sense, 
and. the  spirit  of  conciliation. 

Thus  we  see  that  no  one  wishes  to  submit  to  arbi- 
tration where  all  the  chances  favor  a rival  and  where 
those  who  have  something  to  lose  have  nothing 
wliatever  to  gain.  The  man,  whether  employer  or 
employe,  who  has  everything  to  gain  and  nothing  to 
lose  by  arbitration  always  favors  it.  Could  anything 
be  plainer? 


0 


THE  ANTHRACITE  STRIKE. 


Lei  tis  consider  a serious  dis[)ule,  (fesli  in  the  [)ul)lie 
mind,  to  illustrate  the  unreasonableness  of  the  propo- 
sition to  arbitrate  it. 

The  strike  in  the  anthracite  coal  field  in  Pennsyl- 
vania was  preceded  by  a proposition  made  by  Mr. 
John  Mitchell,  President  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America,  on  behalf  of  the  miners,  to  the  ope- 
rators in  the  anthracite  coal  fields  of  Pennsylvania. 
President  • Mitchell  proposed  for  consideration  of  a 
board  of  arbitration  four  questions  or  points  in  dispute 
between  miners  and  operators.  These 'were,  let  us  say: 

1st.  An  advance  in  wages. 

2nd.  Reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor  from  ten  to 
eight  hours  per  day. 

3rd.  Paying  for  actual  weight  of  coal  instead  of  by 
the  car,. 

4th.  Recognition  of  the  union. 

The  anthracite  coal  mine  operators  declined  to 
arbitrate.  However  much  they  may  otherwise  deserve 
censure,  admitting  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  censure 
is  deserved, — they  not  only  acted  properly  in  refusing 
to  arbitrate,  but  they  did  exactly  what  Mr.  Mitchell  and 
the  miners’  organization  would  have  done  if  the  con- 
verse of  the  miners’  proposition  had  been  submitted 
to  them. 

Let  us  suppose  the  following  proposition  as  com- 
ing from  the  operators  and  submitted  to.  the  miners : 

1st.  A reduction  of  wages. 

2nd.  Increase  in  the  hours  of  labor  from  ten  to 
twelve  hours. 

3rd.  Enlargement  of  coal  cars  now  used. 

4th.  Refusal  to  employ  any  miners  who  are  mem- 
bers of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 


10 


Wliat  reply  would  Mr.  Mitchell  have  made?  Mr. 
iAfitchel]  would  liave  said — “it  is  absurd.”  Why?  Be- 
cause, as  a result,  no  jjossible  benefit  could  accrue  to 
the  miners.  That  would  be  a correct  answer.  The 
anthracite  operators  declined  for  the  same  reason,  since 
they  could  not  possibly  gain  anything  by  arbitration, 
and  they  might  lose  much.  The  fact  is,  Mr.  Mitchell, 
who  is  a very  able  and  a far-seeing  man  and  as 
scrupulously  honest  as  he  is  able,  could  never  have 
expected  the  anthracite  operators  to  accept  his  prop- 
' osition;  but  he  had  a right  to  make  such  a proposition 
and  he  had  a reasonable  right  also  to  believe  that 
the  anthracite  operators  might  offer  a counter  prop- 
osition,  or  at  least  make  some  reply  less  cold,  more 
conciliatory,  less  defiant,  than  the  now  famous  reply 
couched  in  the  undiplomatic  language — “We  have 
nothing  to  arbitrate.” 

A TRAGIC  MISTAKE. 

. This  citation  is  not  made  in  criticism  of  either  Mr. 
Mitchell,  or  of  the  anthracite  miners,  or  of  the  anthracite 
operators,  nor  do  I mean  to  express  an  opinion  on 
the  merits  of  the  dispute. 

The  anthracite  operators  are  total  strangers  to  me, 
and  therefore  I could  not  be  for  or  against  them  on 
•personal  grounds.  I do  know  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  my 
confidence  is  so  strpng  in  his  ability,  in  his  disinterested 
devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  laborer,  in  his  love  of 
truth  and  justice,  that  I wish  with  all  my  heart  th^se 
anthracite  operators,  who  are  painted  as  black  as  dark- 
est night,  would  take  him  into  their  confidence,  just 
to  show  the  world  that  the  so-called  “cruel  coal 
l)aron”  and  the  “walking  delegate”  are  not^  so  far 

11 


apart  and  not  so  unlike,  but  like  the  rest  of  us,  are 
full  of  luiman  weaknesses  and  yet  stamped  with  God’s 
likeness. 

it  is  not,  I say,  my  purpose  to  criticize  either  Mr. 
Mitchell  or  the  anthracite  coal  operators.  I*  only  wish  to 
make  clear  my  opposition  to  indiscriminate  arbitration, 
as  seems  to  be  universally  urged  in  the  present  instance, 
and  to  any  ill-considered  reply  to  such  a request  as 
Mr.  Mitchell’s;  for,  after  all,  he  was  simply  exercising 
the  right  of  petition  on  behalf  of  150,000  miners. 

I have  merely  sought  in  mentioning  these  incidents, 
to  demonstrate  how  a short  answer  will  have  the  opposite 
effect  of  a soft  answer,  and  to  show  how  far  from  the 
truth  are  those  who  think  that  arbitration  is  always  a 
fair  and  simple  thing,  as  well  as  to  point  out  what  trage- 
dies may  follow  from  seemingly  unimportant  mistakes. 

Under  existing  conditions  I do  not  know  that  the 
strike  in  the  anthracite  field  could  have  been  averted, 
but  I do  believe  that  it  has  been  prolonged  by  an  utter 
absence  of  tact  on  the  part  of  the  operators  and  by  the  in- 
termeddling of  well-meaning  parties  who  have  considered 
themselves  specially  qualified  to  adjust  the  dispute. 

Political  intrigue  and  interference  have  not  helped 
in  the  present  instance,  nor  will  a wise  precedent  be 
established  for  the  future,  should  the  present  strike  be 
terminated  through  such  an  agency. 

WHAT  MIGHT  ENSUE. 

The  most  persistent  advocate’s  of  indiscriminate 
arbitration  are  generally  of  the  class  who  know  least 
about  the  danger  of  arbitration,  for  the  reason  that 


12 


the  proposition  to  arbitrate  is  seldom  carried  home  to 
them.  Those  wlio  liave  most  to  say  nj)on  tlie  subject, 
among  the  class  of  our  citizens  wlio  are  at  the  same 
time  the  most  intelligent,  arc  notably  our  clergymen, 
our  lawyers  and  our  editors.  Some  of  the  difficulties 
of  arbitration,  as  they  appear  to  others,  might  be  car- 
ried home  to  them. 

Let  us  say,  for  example,  there  is  a dis- 
pute as  to  what  salary  a certain  widely-known, 
distinguished  city  clergyman  should  be  paid,  and  to 
settle  the  controversy  it  is  submitted  to  a board  of 
arbitration.  Again,  here  is  the  question  of  the  fee  of 
a prominent  city  lawyer  in  dispute;  this  also  is  to  be 
submitted  to  arbitration.  Here  is  an  editor,  or  news- 
paper publisher,  the  subscription  price  of  whose  paper 
is  in  dispute.  All  of  these — the  representatives  of  the 
learned  professions — have  acquired  the  habit  of  saying 
that  honest  and  intelligent  arbiters  will  untangle  the 
knottiest  proposition.  Suppose  the  city  clergyman’s 
salary  is  to  be  decided  by  a board  of  arbitration,  and 
it  is  submitted  to  one  composed  of  rural  preachers, 
who  are  admitted  to  be  honest  and  intelligent  men. 
The  salary  of  the  famous  city  clergyman  would  in  all 
probability  assume  sorry  proportions. 

Then,  again,  let  a board  of  arbitration,  made  up  of 
fair  and  honest  country  lawyers,  pass  upon  the  fee  of  a 
city  lawyer.  Does  anyone  wonder  what  the  result 
would  be? 

Here  is  the  publisher  of  a newspaper  in  a town  of 
50,000,  and  the  public  complains  at  the  obligation  to 
pay  five  cents  per  copy  for  a’local  paper.  The  question 
of  the  subscription  price  of  the  paper  is  submitted  to 
arbitration  and  the  board  is  made  up  of  newspaper 


13 


readers  of  a large  city.  Tf  they  render  a decision  based 
upon  the  ordinary  rules,  what  will  be  the  result?  They 
will  decide  that  the  rural  pa])er  is  worth  certainly  no 
more  than  the  great  newspapers  published  in  New 
York  and  Chicago  or  Philadelphia  and  Boston. 

In  the  coal  mining  industry  of  Illinois,  arbitration 
by  outsiders  would  be  well-nigh  impossible,  whether 
the  interests  of  employers  or  employes  are  to  be  con- 
sidered. Why?  Because  in  the  coal  industry  of  Illinois 
certain  fixed  or  accepted  principles  of  political  economy 
were  thrown  overboard  long  ago.  It  is  no  longer  a 
question  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest — a question  of 
natural  conditions — a question  of  the  earning  capacity 
of  the  workmen.  It  is  the  competitive  conditions 
which  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  order  to 
determine  the  scale  of  wages  for  mining  coal;  it  is  a 
question  of  giving  or  of  dividing  work  in  mines  and 
among  miners  in  the  different  coal  fields  of  the  state. 
Arbiters  not  throroughly  familiar  with  all  the  details 
of  coal  mining  or  with  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the 
coal  mining  industry  in  Illinois  might  succeed  in  either 
arbitrating  some  of  the  operators  out  of  business,  or 
in  arbitrating  a large  number  of  deserving  workmen 
out  of  employment,  because  most  men  not  in  the  in- 
dustry itself  would  be  governed  by  the  general  laws  of 
trade  or  of  political  economy.  Is  it  surprising,  there- 
fore, that  corporations’  representing  great  industrial 
interests,  or  labor  organizations  representing  the  sacred 
and  vital  interests  of  laborers,  hesitate  to  arbitrate, 
and  especially  to  arbitrate  through  an  alien  body? 


14 


JOINT  AGREEMENTS. 


The  eoal  miners,  and  coal  mine  operators  eame 
together  in  1898  and  adopted  what  is  known  in  the 
bituminous  coal  fields  of  the  central  states  as  the  sys- 
tem of  “joint  agreements,”  or  what  is  called  in  the  schools 
of  economics,  a system  of  “joint  bargaining.”  While, 
perhaps,  only  minimum  good  of  it  has  thus  far  been 
realized  by  its  founders,  still  it  seems  to  me  the  most 
practical  and  equitable  system  ever  d^sed,  because 
it  not  only  recognizes  the  contract  relations  of  em- 
ployer and  employe,  and  it  sometimes  provides  a way 
of  adjusting  differences  and  disputes  arising  between 
them  and  under  the  agreements,  within  the  industry 
itself,  but  it  points  the  way  for  others  who  have  known 
the  maximum  of  discord,  the  way  to  industrial  peace, 
when  capital  is  once  generally  organized,  as  it  must 
and  is  certain  to  organize  in  the  near  future. 
Thus  home  disputes  are  kept  at  home  and  the 
soiled  family  linen  is  not  laundered  where  a curious 
public  will  gaze  at  it,  comment  and  make  mis- 
chief. Strange  as  it  may  seem,  even  in  the  coal  mining 
industry  of  the  bituminous  fields  where  coal  miners  and 
operators  are  on  easy  terms,-  there  is  still  some  reluct- 
ance, if  not  suspicion,  regarding  what  might  be  desig- 
nated “Arbitration,”  and  that,  too,  as  applied  and  regu- 
lated within  the  industry  itself.  As  showing  this  to  be 
true,  here  is  one  of  a series  of  important  resolutions 
proposed  at  the  Interstate  Convention  of  coal  miners 
and  coal  mine  operators  held  at  Indianapolis  in  Febru- 
ary, 1902: 

. “Confidently  believing  the  system  of  the  joint  agree- 
ments, under  a joint  movement  of  employers  and  em- 
ployes, to  be  a wise  and  safe  system  if  honestly  and  faith- 


fully  adhered  to,  and-  to  perpetuate  and  perfect  that 
system,  if  possil)le,  in  the  coal  mining  industry  repre- 
senting the  bituminous  coal  mining  industry  in  this 
Interstate  Convention,  declare  ounselves  ready  to  pro- 
vide for  the  settlement  of  disputes  or  differences  arising 
under  our  interstate  agreements  by  the  formation  of  a 
board  of  referees  to  which  such  differences  or  disputes 
may  be  carried,  in  an  extremity,  for  final  adjustment.” 

The  remaining  resolutions  of  the  series  were  adopted 
unanimously,  but  the  one  above  quoted  was  opposed 
and  voted  down  by  the  miners  of  the  four  states  and 
the  operators  of  three  states  represented  in  the  joint 
convention.  If  afraid  of  themselves,  why  not  afraid 
of  an  alien  agency? 

WHO  IS  THE  THIRD  PARTY? 

When  strikes  occur  and  ^ when  there  is  talk  of  arbi- 
tration a good  deal  is  said  on  the  subject  of  a “third 
party.”  Who  compose  the  “third  party  ?”  Are  we  not 
every  one  almost  at  one  and  the  same  time  more  or 
less  of  the  first,  second  and  third  party?  If  there  is  a 
strike  in  the  office  of  the  publisher,  or  of  the  merchant, 
the  parties  directly  concerned  are  of  the  first  or  second 
party,  while  the  same  parties  are  of  the  third  party 
when  there  is  a strike  in  some  other  establishment  or 
industry.  It  is  this  so  - called  third  party  which, 
when  it  does  not  belong  to  the  first  or  second  party  at 
the  time,  often  urges  compulsory  arbitration.  Com- 
pulsory arbitration  should  therefore  not  be  demanded 
unless  the  first,  second  and  third  party  are  all  agreed, 
after  due  deliberation,  that  compulsory  arbitration  is* 
not  only  the  best  form  of  arbitration,  but  that  it  is 
absolutely  needed  and  that  it  can  be  adopted  with 


16 


safety  under  our  peculiar  form  of  government,  and  in 
our  land  of  varied  interests.  But  to  me  it  seems  that 
we  can  never  agree  in  this  country  on  compulsory 
arbitration,  though  in  quasi-public  enterprises  there  are 
times  when  it  might  seem  to  be  desirable.  Some  law 
may  be  needed  to  prevent  “strikes”  or  “lockouts” 
where,  by  reason  of  these,  travel  is  stopped  or  rendered 
hazardous,  or  where  the  supply  of  light  and  water  is 
shut  -off.  When  such  a law,  however,  is  enacted,  it 
must  not  be  left  either  to  the  agents  of  great  corpora- 
tions, to  our  labor  organizations,  or  to  the  amateurs 
now  clamoring  for  it,  but  it  must  be  drafted  by  the 
most  experienced,  the  wisest,  the  fairest  and  the  most 
far-seeing  students  not  only  of  political  economy,  but 
of  the  existing  conditions.  In  the  matter  of  putting 
such  a law  on  our  statute  books,  let  us  make  haste 
" slowly.  Let  us  trust  to  a wise  form  of  -^p.lf- government 
in  such  tnnf.fppc:  bpi-ng  evolved  within  all  our  industries 
in  the  process  of  industrial  evolution,  and  let  us 
rern^^^irselvS"de^^s  with  all  forms  of  arbitration  and 
more  with  plans  for  rendering  arbitration  unnecessary. 

How  many  employing  firms  or  companies  who  now 
seem  to  think  that  compulsory  arbitration,  or  some 
form  of  arbitration — such  as  that  which  it  proposes 
to  force  upon  a great  industry  by  the  power  of  public 
opinion — how  many  of  such  will  stand  for  it?  How 
many  organizations  of  labor  will  stand  for  arbitration 
that  is  either  forced  upon  them  by  reason  of  some  law 
.upon  the  statute  books,  or  by  reason  of  the 
power  of  an  unenlightened  and  unwise  public 
opinion. 

Both  well-informed,  expert  authority  on  the  side 
of  labor  and  on  the  side  of  capital,  have  pronounced 


17 


forced  arhiteltTOn^^^Qr  compulsory  arbitration  useless,  if 
£ailT]]-p  Only  that  form  of  arbitration  is  wise 
and  salutary  which,  besides  being  born  of  our  ulti- 
mate needs,  is  the  result  of  our  ever-growing  love  for 
and  our  ev^r-clearer  insight  into  the  principles  of 
justice,  divine  in  their  origin  and  nobly  human  in 
their  application. 

ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EMPLOYER  CLA55. 

All  talk  of  arbitration  or  anything  akin  to  it  is  well- 
nigh  idle,  unless  we  take  account  of  organization — not 
only  as  applied  to  employe,  but  organization  as  applied 
to  employer.  Whether  we  oppose  it  or  favor  it,  organ- 
ized labor  has  come  to  stay,  and  it  must  therefore  be 
considered  because  we  must  deal  with  it.  The  em- 
ployer class  must  organize  to  a point  of  excellence  and 
efficiency  wffiere  organized  labor  will  respect  it.  . . 

/ am  convinced  that  only  by  organization  can  common 
labor  get  the  maximum  wages  for  its  hire.  I am  equally  well 
eonvinced  that  only  through  organization  of  the  employer 
class  will  capital  obtain  from  organized  labor  the  most 
and  the  best  service  in  return  for  the  wages  paid. 

It  is  my  belief  that  all  great  departments  of  industry 
must  have  their  departments  of  labor  if  serious  friction 
is  to  be  avoided,  and  if  the  dividends  of  capital  and 
the  wages  of  labor  are  to  be  fairly  and  wisely  adjusted. 
When  we  pause  to  reflect,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  all 
the  departments  of  great  business  enterprises  have 
their  specially  appointed  heads  to  direct  and  to  mdnage, 
with  the  exception  of  the  department  of  labor?  This 
is  allowed  to  get  along  as  best  it  can,  and  yet  what 
department  of  any  great  business  enterprise  is  of  equal 
importance?  This  seems  the  more  inexplicable  and. 


18 


indefensible  in  view  of  the  fact  that  when  we  reduce 
the  whole  problem  of  business  competition  to  concrete 
form  there  are  only  two  propositions  after  all  with 
which  the  business  man  has  to  deal:  the  price  of  labor 
and  the  rate  of  interest. 

When  we  stop  to  consider  this  question  reduced  to 
its  extremity  it  is  not  surprising  that  in  the  past  and 
before  labor  was  organized  the  breach  between  the  em- 
ployer and  the  employe  became  serious.  Labor  in  the 
past  has  made  its  sacrifices  when  times  became  hard  and 
when  competition  was  sharp  and  ruinous,  so  it  was 
fair  labor  should  have  shared  in  the  benefits  of  what- 
ever prosperity  the  country  at  large  enjoyed.  The  law 
of  supply  and  demand  as  applied  to  the  human  com- 
modity is  revolting  to  me,  and  that  this  law  has  been 
too  rigorously  applied  in  the  past  will  go  far  to  explain 
the  wide  breach  between  capital  and  labor. 

Though  we  must  submit  to  the  application  of  the 
law  of  supply  and  demand,  it  must  not  be  with  an 
utter  disregard  of  the  rights,  feelings  and  well  being 
of  our  fellow  man. 

With  the  organization  of  labor  this  evil  has  been 
greatly  mitigated  and  a new  problem  has  arisen,  easy 
enough  to  temporarily  solve  in  prosperous  times  like 
the  present  period,  but  what  may  we  expect  when 
reverses  come  and  a reduction  in  wages*  may  seem 
necessary?  Many  vital  questions  will  arise  calling  for 
something  more  than  passing  attention.  To  arrange 
an  equitable  basis  for  determining  such  matters  must, 
therefore,  be  the  work  of  some  one,  not  only  specially 
appointed,  ‘ l)ut  specially  qualified;  and  what  is  true 
of  one  industry  is  true  of  all  industries  collectively. 
All  of  these  industries  collectively  must  have  their 


19 


force  of  specialists,  who  are  experts  in  this  department 
of  science,  to  whom  should  be  committed  all  those 
questions  affecting  capital  in  its  relations  to  labor. 

GOOD  SAMARITAN  NEEDED. 

In  no  age  of  the  world  has  the  labor  problem  seemed 
either  more  complicated  or  more  important,  and  in 
solving  it  we  must  look  to  experts  or  speeialists — to 
wise,  strong,  fair  men  who  will  conseerate  their  lives 
and  dedicate  their  talents  to  its  proper  solution.  It 
is  a great,  vast,  intricate  problem,  and  it  is  not  enough, 
therefore,  that  we  have  “good  Samaritans,’'  wise  phi- 
lanthropists, kind  and  generous  men  and  women  in 
large  centers  of  population  helping  to  solve  it,  but 
what  we  need  is  more  such  lives  as  these,  consecrated 
to  humanity  in  the  lowly  walks  of  life  and  in  out-of- 
the-way  plaees.  All  of  the  world’s  suffering,  discord, 
want  and  ignorance  is  not  confined  to  the  larger  cities, 
for  in  the  smaller  manufaeturing  towns,  and  particu- 
larly in  the  mining  camps,  may  be  found  a class  of 
citizens  who  are  both  needy  and  deserving,  and  who 
by  accident  of  birth  must  tread  the  wine-press  alone. 
These,  if  benefited,  would  give  back  with  wholesome 
interest. 

The  youth  in  these  localities  should  appeal  to  those 
who  seek  to  make  the  world  wiser  and  better,  and  it 
is  plainly  the  duty  of  true  philanthropy  to  provide 
every  means  for  the  development  of  the  heart 
and  mind  and  brawn  of  youth. 

In  obscure  neighborhoods  opportunities  for  growth 
are  sadly  limited,  nor  can  they  be  created  when  the 
material  of  whieh  opportunities  are  made  does  not 
exist.  The  harvest  is  great  in  sueh  sections,  but  the 


20 


laborers  are  few,  and  wise  and  generous  men  must 
either  provide  advantages  or  earry  the  youth  into  an 
atmosphere  where  his  mental,  moral  and  physical  na- 
ture may  escape  the  sickening  Idiglit  of  unwholesome 
environment. 


SEEING  OUR  DUTY  CLEARLY. 

An  occasion  like  the  present  confers  upon  society 
only  the  minimum  of  good  unless  the  lessons  here 
learned  and  the  resolutions  here  formed  are  religiously 
enforced  day  by  day.  It  is  altogether  too  true  that 
as  citizens,  though  declaring  our  devotion  to  our 
country,  we  give  to  it  our  last  instead  of  our  first 
thoughts  and  we  proffer  it  with  reluctance,  a few  spare 
moments,  where  hours  of  undivided  service  and  thought 
are  demanded  if  we  mean  to  discharge  our  simple 
civic  obligations.  Let  us  once  learn  to  discharge  these 
obligations  and  herein  will  lie  the  golden  use  of  arbi- 
tration, while  its  abuse  will  become  as  rare  as  the 
need  of  its  proper  enforcement.  Let  those  who  have 
heard  me  to-day  remember  that  while  admitting  the 
abuses  of  arbitration,  I have  not  denied  its  proper  use. 

Let  us  arise  to  the  needs  of  our  times  and  remove 
the  dangers  by  which  we  are  threatened.  Let  us 
apply  to  all  public  questions,  but  more  particularly  to 
that  most  vital  question  affecting  the  relations  of 
capital  and  labor,  our  well-earned  national  virtue — 
common  sense,  and  the  boasted  quality  of  our  race — the 
spirit  of  fair  play. 


“Let  us  cleanse 

The  hearts  that  beat  within  us;  let  us  now 
Clean  to  the  roots  our  falseness  and  our  pretense. 
Tread  down  our  rank  ambitions,  overthrow 
Our  braggart  moods  of  puffed  self-consequence. 
Plow  up  our  hideous  thistles  which  do  grow 
Faster  than  maize  in  May  time,  and  strike  dead 
The  base  infections  our  low  greeds  have  bred.” 


21 


I 


